<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
tldr; There are no riders allowed on consensus items.<br>
<br>
You're mistaken. It's not allowed to tack things on to a consensus
proposal or "stretch" them at all. Wouldn't that make you feel like
you're circumventing the process that we use to make reasonable
decisions?<br>
You can reach consensus on something as it was posted to the list or
try again next week. You shot yourself in the foot trying to rush it
through, you'll need to follow procedure before it counts for
anything. <br>
You could make the argument that those parts which weren't altered
on the day of the meeting are still valid. But it is an absolute
certainty that membership fee requirements have not been altered by
the vote.<br>
Not to comment on the quality of the proposal. It might get support
in the future. <br>
Best of luck, <br>
--D<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/20/13, 8:14 AM, bfb wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:ts9c0xb61mncmec6okwu7juh.1384963555288@email.android.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
James, I agree that eliminating the requirement of member dues as
a part of the associate member decision was a stretch. It was
topical in the context of a member/associate member contrast. I
would not have consensed on a proposal that privileges dues with
full participation in consensus. ... ... please jump in and
correct me if I am mistaken.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Kevin </div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>